Get best of the week

Battle Experimenters - Sand and Stick Science - Inoculation of Scientific Thinking into the Public Mind



The paradox of the modern school system is that, speaking on behalf of science, it requires “blind dogmatic worship” of “scientific truths”, but ignores the unshakable scientific principle of total doubt. To put it mildly, little attention is paid to the study of the scientific method. It all comes down to remembering scientific facts, without understanding how they were obtained.
Our goal, however, is not to upload a certain amount of scientific information to the student, or even to make it understand and internalize this information. Purpose: to instill a real scientific method of thinking and teach how to obtain "new" knowledge directly from the outside world without intermediaries and authorities. To teach to ask the right questions, to set up and conduct experiments, to interpret the results, to critically interpret andfalsify interpretations.

We offer some initiative, which, in our opinion, could inspire the scientific epistemological principles into the mass consciousness. We will be glad to any constructive participation.

Under the cut, a long detailed introduction. Battle itself is devoted to the last paragraph of the text.

About the problem


Science can be conditionally represented as an industry producing knowledge.
In a modern school, the emphasis is on acquainting students with the products of science: theories, laws, hypotheses ... While the scientific method - the technology for obtaining these knowledge products - practically does not receive any attention. To say that science is taught in this way is just as ridiculous as eating in a restaurant as a cooking class. It is one thing to enjoy great food and quite another to be able to cook it.
It’s even scary that we give “fish” and don’t say anything about “fishing rod” and thereby educate a kind of consumerism, the ability to use the knowledge gained is a very important skill. But the results of modern science themselves may seem magical if a person is not familiar with the methods by which they are obtained. The relationship between children and modern exhibitions of scientific achievements or the so-called science festivals can be compared with cargo cults that exist among Aboriginal people who admired scientific achievements in the style of: “look, the priests performed a miracle!”
Without an understanding of the nature of knowledge, the methods by which it was obtained, it is common for people to give it a distorted value and draw incorrect conclusions about its properties and limitations.
But this is exactly what is happening in the modern school. When a student does not know how this or that scientific fact was obtained, this knowledge by its status turns into a “revelation of the prophets”, which cannot be critically interpreted, it can only be memorized, and do not dare to add or decrease anything to it! And the textbook becomes a "holy book", the truth of the content of which in no case can be doubted. Probably, this is precisely the reason for such a success of the “British scientists” and other manipulative constructions that make it possible to use scientific authority to mislead the masses.
Yes, there are enthusiastic teachers at the school who, understanding the flaw of such an approach, tell children about the nature of scientific knowledge, but it would be strange to justify the rule with exceptions to it.

But science is a completely different thing, its root is total doubt. The most important principle of the scientific approach is the criticality of the perception of information. In order to ensure the necessary level of objectivity, the scientific method over hundreds of years has developed a huge toolbox of theoretical and experimental research. The most striking thing is that with the advent of the philosophy of science, the scientific method seeks to critically interpret itself and its own results. This is perhaps the most important thing that has given the scientific method to humanity. We can also argue, not without reason, that mastery of the method is at least no less important than acquaintance with individual results, which were obtained using the same method.

But alas, a significant proportion of society is completely ignorant of basic scientific principles.
You can conduct an experiment to verify this.
. , , : 2, 4, 6. . , — , — . , , .
: 8, 10, 12 30, 32, 34? : , . , , , 
 104, 106, 108? , .
, , , , , 2? , — . , . .
, , 3, 7, 15. , , , . , .
, , — .

If a person is not instilled with an appropriate culture of thinking, he will cling to his own illusions, and any dissent who tries to dissuade the first of something will be perceived as hostile and provoke aggression, since he destroys the familiar comfortable picture of the world. An infringement of a point of view is regarded as an infringement of a person. These are very ancient archetypal patterns of behavior. We can see this even here in HabrĂ©, where the intellectual level of the audience is noticeably higher than the average “in the hospital”, when instead of trying to understand the opponent, to understand his arguments, minus karma is used. What difference does it make, what kind of weapon, the main thing is to win, to assert oneself, to prove one’s rightness.
Which of us is ready to say to ourselves: I will be glad in a dispute to find out that I was wrong, because this will save me from the illusions that I am in? Such behavior is unnatural, it requires a high level of intellectual culture and self-reflection. But this is precisely what the modern philosophy of science has come to: “Whatever solution to a problem we propose, we should immediately try to refute this solution in the most serious way, and not defend it . ” (K.Popper)

The upbringing of a scientific method of thinking, and not just knowledge of many scientific facts, is a vaccination against obscurantism, mass illusions, delusions and manipulations, since it is a practical skill in mastering the technique of distinguishing between truth and error.
Alas, modern school education often, instead of critical thinking, educates dogmatism. Back in the Soviet school, the material was presented as the ultimate truth. In the era of the exam, the situation only worsens.
In reality, science is not Truth at all, but only conventions, interpretations of observations, and much can be explained in a completely different way. Science is an eternal debate, and not even a consensus has been reached on all issues from the school curriculum. And this is not at all essential knowledge about the world, but knowledge about who thinks what about the world. Do not confuse the description of reality and reality itself - a map of the area with symbols and terrain with elements of the landscape. In addition, even the most rigorous evidence stands on the “clay feet” of axioms that have to be accepted without evidence. And there’s also Gödel’s theorem ...
But it is precisely that in all scientific knowledge one can and must doubt and is his strength, and not weakness at all! Science was born out of doubt, and it is its driving force.
But what can we say about the lack of education of critical thinking at school, when even in universities in laboratory work the truth is often not an experiment, but a training manual ... How many principled daredevils who refused to customize the answers did not receive offsets on labs and were “convicted of heresy” ...
Where would freethink come from with their own interpretations, game and the spirit of experimentation?
After all, if our goal is to educate a learned experimenter, shouldn't students offer the task of independently searching for methods to study a particular phenomenon, rather than mechanically repeating what was described in the training manual? Or ask a question and invite students to independently model an experiment, the result of which will be able to answer this question? This pedagogical model is called problem-based learning (Problem-based Learning), it is gaining popularity in Western universities.

Entertaining philosophy of science


We see as our task the creation of such an educational game, where the philosophy and methodology of science would serve as the rules. We suggest playing experimenters.
Why a game?
— . , , , , 
 , , , . — — , 

, . , “”, , , , , , . , 

( 
) , , . , “ ” , . , “” , , 

— . , , .

In order to create the most vivid image, imagine some show. The host asks a question that can only be answered by conducting an experiment. We are not interested in answers from textbooks, the Internet, or any other authoritative sources - only an experiment is considered a criterion of truth.
As an example, the following question can be suggested: are there several cubes that can be placed in a column on top of each other or put in a row, in which case you need to apply less force to move the cubes by sliding on a flat surface?
After receiving a task, several teams scatter around the laboratory rooms, where each tries to simulate and conduct an experiment that answers the question posed.
Each team has at its disposal an experimental set consisting of basic elements: cubes, balls, cogs, slats, ropes, wire, rubber bands, blocks, nuts, bolts ... A constructor from which it is possible to assemble the most diverse experimental setups in terms of functionality. Of the measuring instruments, only the classical ones could be given: a ruler without divisions and compasses, but what can replace their functionality is not difficult to make from designer elements.
Our main tool is doubt. We should not take any ready-made measuring instruments - how do we know that they can be trusted? We need to construct everything we need on our own, thoroughly understanding the principles on which it is based.

Of course, each team has its own creative process in its own unique way, a variety of approaches are being tested. The audience is presented with a rich textured video sequence, where scenes from one laboratory are replaced by others. These are not just talking heads of expert botanists; creativity is boiling here, installations are being created, experiments are being conducted.

At some point, one of the teams reports on success. A “scientific conference” is going to take place - all participants will return to the studio. A representative of a successful group makes a report - describes the experiment, the results obtained, and sets out its version of what it would mean.
A discussion begins in which the task of the participants is to falsifythe proposed hypothesis is to find weaknesses in it that make one doubt the given interpretation or the purity of the experiment. New questions are also being raised that require additional research.
For the cubes problem, these may be the following questions: Will the result be different for the static and sliding friction forces? Will the result change if a different surface is used? How will the result be affected by the inclination of the plane? Is it possible to predict how friction depends on the angle of inclination? Does it depend on speed and how? How will it depend on the number of cubes? And what happens if you add grease? ..
Points are awarded for any question posed, and even more so for the answer, proposed interpretation or theoretical model. Any discovery or discovery of a flaw in existing interpretations and theories is also rewarded as in real science.
After the conference, participants return to their laboratories, where they try to reproduce the experiment, as well as explore all the possible patterns associated with the phenomenon being studied.
Ultimately, participants must learn to pose questions independently and, making their way through illusions, go to the truth.

Applied Science and Technology


The cubes problem can be posed differently: propose the most efficient way to move cubes from one point in space to another. The question posed in this way takes us to a qualitatively different plane - to the field of technological knowledge. Here we must not only find answers to some abstract questions, we solve problems to achieve a specific result related to the transformation of the objective world. In this case, we get not just reliable information, but real knowledge, which in the literal sense of the word is a force, having them in hand, we get a certain power over the world, knowledge of how to change it. This is a way of learning not only to obtain, but also to apply the acquired knowledge. This is what literally expands our capabilities.
Unlike the first task, such a statement of the question is an invitation to creative creativity. From analysis we move on to synthesis.
Of course, the list of issues is by no means limited to “cubes”, and “effectiveness” can be measured in a variety of physical or economic units.

Battle experimenters - a competition to find the most reliable answer


Today, in isolation, as a “test ball”, we are launching a competition of experiments to search for the most reliable answer as part of the Festival of Exciting Science . The proposed tasks are described on the Taipad .
Participants are invited to come up with and conduct experiments, based on the results of which, it is possible to answer the questions posed. You can use any improvised materials and tools: boards, stones, wire, at least a 3D printer ... everything is limited only by imagination and what is at hand. But the use of off-the-shelf measuring instruments is absolutely unacceptable. You can use only those devices that we will manufacture ourselves with an understanding of how they work and why their testimony can be trusted.
The results of the experiment, together with a description of the instruments and interpretation of the results, must be shot on video and posted on Youtube, and the link sent to the organizers.
We plan to post all the videos on the Miro board in order to systematize the results. Here, together with other participants in the competition, we will arrange a scientific discussion, we will compare the results, and to reproduce the experiments of other participants to verify. Conduct additional research ... And so on, until we understand that we have nothing more to doubt.
You can participate alone or as a team, family, class or group of friends.

PS


At the moment, there is a timid hope that a serious educational project could grow out of the seed of this idea. With the accumulation of documented research, a democratic science could emerge - a system of evidence-based knowledge obtained through collective efforts and speaking in a language understood by the average person. A system in which each person could make a contribution, or doubt any element of knowledge of this system. And if there is any statement, we could understand on what basis it is based.
We live in a strange world - probably, every schoolchild from the elementary grades firmly “knows” that matter consists of molecules and atoms, but only a tiny fraction of people who have a higher natural science education, easily operate with the Avogadro number, are able to harmoniously state what experimental data lead us to conclusions about the discreteness of matter and the size of these particles. Quite often knowledge is replaced by faith.

At the moment, the project has no formed team - only a group of sympathizers. If you consider this initiative useful and promising and would like to take part in its development, we will be glad to see you!

It is possible that such projects are already being implemented somewhere. If you know something about them, a huge request to write in the comments or through personal messages on social networks.
So far, the closest of the analogues found is the Odyssey of Reason . Something similar also existed in a story called Physical Fights , the traces of which can be found here.

More articles:


All Articles